Well it's a good thing you exuded such a confident number in the article to make your point when you very well knew it was completely made up. Definitely gives the reader confidence that the rest of the article is completely true!
This feels a lot like a reddit-style post, where someone says "This is my first ever time doing X and I need feedback. Please be gentle I am total newbie hehe :)", and they post something obviously done by or significantly influenced by an expert.
I would hate to work with a person who subscribes to these strategies. Someone who can't form their own opinion and looks for the easy way out above all else.
Suddenly anyone in the future with the ability for critical thinking and problem solving beyond "do they have an app for that?" is going to inherit the Earth.
This doesn't counter anything the OP said. No one is claiming the new generations aren't both ok and broken in new ways. Pointing out that you have a teenager that plays a somewhat difficult game doesn't add much to the discussion. Also, the fact that you won't even try the game and yet have made a judgement about how difficult it is says more about you than anything else.
And in fact, I don't think anyone would be surprised if that very same teenager looks up YouTube videos about how to beat the most difficult parts, find all the secrets, and so on.
Even less like the hard old games, Celeste comes with an assist mode:
> Assist Mode allows you to modify the game’s rules to fit your specific needs. This includes options such as slowing the game speed, granting yourself invincibility or infinite stamina, and skipping chapters entirely. Celeste is intended to be a challenging and rewarding experience.
Those were the only `hard` skills they could come up with? This reads like someone who is trying really hard to validate their life decision to spend many, many years in higher education.
I mean:
> we still say (and write) things such as ‘heuristics’, ‘confirmation bias’ or ‘family-wise error rate’
If you came out of a PhD and think these are challenging concepts to pick up, or that they somehow make you more valuable than your average technical employee, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I generally avoid hiring PhDs onto my teams unless the problem I'm faced with is PRECISELY what they researched. 9 times out of 10 a highly motivated generalist is far more valuable than a PhD.
This case is also weird if you reimagine all of the participants as penguins in Antarctica. Since that didn't happen, it would be a waste of time to speculate what would happen in a completely different scenario.
In a country where things like open carry are legal, the "logical conclusion" of your argument makes no sense. That would mean when anyone who owns a gun sees another gun in public, they can conclude that their life is threatened and open fire with no consequences.
This seems to be a bad faith argument, given that Kyle was being physically and brutally attacked when he correctly responded in self-defense. Quite different from your "logical conclusion".
You didn't answer the question, and instead leapt to something hand wavey about how people fill in blanks.
Nobody is grinding away at anything, perhaps other than yourself. It seems many people here are mystified by your unyielding interpretation of a two word sentence and nobody can seem to get a straight answer out of you, other than repeating the truism that "it's not obvious".